Trump chose his skin colour, and there has not been institutional racism against orange people in the US since its inception. If you want to get rid of double standards, at least try to realise where one is being applied.
BLM isn't a group it's a movement. It's not a movement of hate, but a movement designed to bring attention to the disproportionate violence meted out by the police to black and Latino people. Don't get fundamental facts wrong then condemn others for being "intellectual weakling"s. It makes you look rather foolish.
FYI the statistics show that black and Latino people are far more likely to encounter physical violence from the police. It's not just about being killed, but unwarranted severe physical abuse which affects lives and livelihoods.
There's one problem with the "guns protect against tyranny" thing - the armed forces. If they're against the populace, then there's no amount of guns in private hands which can beat them. If they're on the side of the populace, there's no need for the guns, as the armed forces have theirs. Ask soldiers who've returned from Iraq and Afghanistan which they feared more - locals with guns, or locals with explosives.
That's why the expression is "grammar nazi" and not simply "nazi". It's ascribing the zealotry of nazism to highlighting poor grammar, not saying that all nazis had impeccable grammar.
The question asked was too great for any single person to comprehend. No single person alive knows all the workings of the EU, let alone enough of the electorate for asking them to make sense. People disagree on important things all the time - that's not the problem. The problem was asking a ridiculous question for personal political gains, when the risks are so high.
I can't take you seriously with your lack-of-virtue signalling signature. It only serves to make you look like a racist desperately trying to not look like a racist. It's not very effective.
If the laptop/cellphone had one single button which, when pressed, hacked whatever it was pointed at and stole $450,000 from it, you might see how leaving it unsecured isn't as innocent as you portray it...
A big fucking dog helps with home defense, and doesn't take time off to get drunk or otherwise incapacitated to the point defending the home becomes dangerous. It also doesn't kill your family when you lose your job, and most certainly won't go to Las Vegas to shoot the ever-loving-fuck out of innocent people.
Your absurd appraisal of the discussion is the most painful thing here. You're not going to learn anything if you can't even accurately portray the reality of the discussion.
You do realise you can't fight the US military with the weapons you're allowed to own, right? That means if the armed forces are fighting for the people you don't need to do anything, and if the armed forces are fighting against the people your guns won't help. They're an anachronism - a lot has changed since the late 1700s, strangely enough.
If you think the only form of self defense is a gun you are beyond help. Hint: they can get a dog. A blind person waving a gun around isn't defending themselves even though they have a gun.
The difference is in each of those countries gun control was discussed afterwards, and progress made. The US seems hell-bent on not learning less someone's centuries-old document gets offended.
Just because there is a treaty doesn't mean you can guess the contents of it to further your argument. The North Atlantic Treaty doesn't agree with your appraisal of its contents.
This is the thing, though: It's easy enough to stop cars from running people over. It's also a lot harder to turn a cooker into a bomb than simply picking up the object you already have in your possession. It's a lot harder to make sure crowds of tens of thousands are protected against guns if people have guns everywhere, and any discussion about their inherent danger versus their relative lack of use (compared to cars and cooking pots) if they continue to be fetishized. If we could have a sensible discussion where guns are not elevated above all other utensils, we might get to the bottom of this.
That's what happens when you have porous, heavily-crossed borders between areas of different levels of gun control. Correctly-implemented (read: national) gun control would help this massively, but is unpalatable to many it seems.
Slashdot Mirror
"Handsome" can also apply to women.
The world hasn't ended, but respect for America has.
Trump chose his skin colour, and there has not been institutional racism against orange people in the US since its inception. If you want to get rid of double standards, at least try to realise where one is being applied.
BLM isn't a group it's a movement. It's not a movement of hate, but a movement designed to bring attention to the disproportionate violence meted out by the police to black and Latino people. Don't get fundamental facts wrong then condemn others for being "intellectual weakling"s. It makes you look rather foolish.
FYI the statistics show that black and Latino people are far more likely to encounter physical violence from the police. It's not just about being killed, but unwarranted severe physical abuse which affects lives and livelihoods.
BLM isn't a racial supremacy group. Characterising it as such isn't helping anyone.
Or Clara. Never forget Clara.
No, but I'm aware you have no argument.
Write a paper, win all the money. Go on! We'll wait.
There's one problem with the "guns protect against tyranny" thing - the armed forces. If they're against the populace, then there's no amount of guns in private hands which can beat them. If they're on the side of the populace, there's no need for the guns, as the armed forces have theirs. Ask soldiers who've returned from Iraq and Afghanistan which they feared more - locals with guns, or locals with explosives.
You are making the classic mistake of assuming the anger comes from a difference in opinion, not in the character of the different opinion.
That's why the expression is "grammar nazi" and not simply "nazi". It's ascribing the zealotry of nazism to highlighting poor grammar, not saying that all nazis had impeccable grammar.
The question asked was too great for any single person to comprehend. No single person alive knows all the workings of the EU, let alone enough of the electorate for asking them to make sense. People disagree on important things all the time - that's not the problem. The problem was asking a ridiculous question for personal political gains, when the risks are so high.
I can't take you seriously with your lack-of-virtue signalling signature. It only serves to make you look like a racist desperately trying to not look like a racist. It's not very effective.
If the laptop/cellphone had one single button which, when pressed, hacked whatever it was pointed at and stole $450,000 from it, you might see how leaving it unsecured isn't as innocent as you portray it...
A big fucking dog helps with home defense, and doesn't take time off to get drunk or otherwise incapacitated to the point defending the home becomes dangerous. It also doesn't kill your family when you lose your job, and most certainly won't go to Las Vegas to shoot the ever-loving-fuck out of innocent people.
Your absurd appraisal of the discussion is the most painful thing here. You're not going to learn anything if you can't even accurately portray the reality of the discussion.
You do realise you can't fight the US military with the weapons you're allowed to own, right? That means if the armed forces are fighting for the people you don't need to do anything, and if the armed forces are fighting against the people your guns won't help. They're an anachronism - a lot has changed since the late 1700s, strangely enough.
If you think the only form of self defense is a gun you are beyond help. Hint: they can get a dog. A blind person waving a gun around isn't defending themselves even though they have a gun.
The difference is in each of those countries gun control was discussed afterwards, and progress made. The US seems hell-bent on not learning less someone's centuries-old document gets offended.
That's poor logic. They might not be able to counter your argument, but that says nothing about whether your argument is sound or not.
It's true - he dedicated a golf trophy to them! What more do they want?!?
Just because there is a treaty doesn't mean you can guess the contents of it to further your argument. The North Atlantic Treaty doesn't agree with your appraisal of its contents.
This is the thing, though: It's easy enough to stop cars from running people over. It's also a lot harder to turn a cooker into a bomb than simply picking up the object you already have in your possession. It's a lot harder to make sure crowds of tens of thousands are protected against guns if people have guns everywhere, and any discussion about their inherent danger versus their relative lack of use (compared to cars and cooking pots) if they continue to be fetishized. If we could have a sensible discussion where guns are not elevated above all other utensils, we might get to the bottom of this.
That's what happens when you have porous, heavily-crossed borders between areas of different levels of gun control. Correctly-implemented (read: national) gun control would help this massively, but is unpalatable to many it seems.